Associates For Biblical Research - An Alternative Interpretation of Bender's WoodCurrent Eventshttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/
http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specificationBlogEngine.NET 1.6.1.6en-UShttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/opml.axdAssociates for Biblical ResearchAssociates For Biblical Research0.0000000.000000Anne Habermehl on An Alternative Interpretation of Bender's WoodWise misses one matter: the asphalt on the wood bits was not carbon dated. Bender merely states in the article that the age of the asphalt &quot;surely exceeded 50,000 years.&quot; Only the wood was carbon dated.
Also: of course the wood bits were buried in post-Flood sedimentary material. What else would they be buried in? If those bits actually were wood remnants from the Ark, all sedimentation of the remains of the vessel would be post-Flood, since the Ark would have originally sat on top of the ground when it landed. This proves nothing.
I find Wise's suggestion that Mount Cudi may not yet have been there until after the Flood to be untenable in view of geography and history and the Biblical account. Cudi is in the mountains of Ararat/Urartu, and the Bible clearly says those mountains were there when the Ark landed in the fifth month.https://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/04/An-Alternative-Interpretation-of-Benders-Wood.aspx#id_e77cc2ef-b891-4ff5-9072-c5a580160f8e
Anne Habermehlhttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/04/An-Alternative-Interpretation-of-Benders-Wood.aspx#id_e77cc2ef-b891-4ff5-9072-c5a580160f8eWed, 13 Aug 2008 08:05:49 -0500Anne Habermehlhttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/pingback.axdhttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/04/An-Alternative-Interpretation-of-Benders-Wood.aspx#id_e77cc2ef-b891-4ff5-9072-c5a580160f8ehttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/08/04/An-Alternative-Interpretation-of-Benders-Wood.aspx#id_e77cc2ef-b891-4ff5-9072-c5a580160f8e#commenthttps://www.biblearchaeology.org/syndication.axd?post=e77cc2ef-b891-4ff5-9072-c5a580160f8e